Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 2, 2011 12:30am-1:00am PDT

12:30 am
iraq's we have enough copies for everybody. -- >> we have enough copies for everybody. >> i would move the except these documents. >> is there any public comment on this motion? we can call the roll up your good -- we can call the roll. >> on that motion to except this late in the middle -- this late submission. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0 to accept. >> have the appellants and been given this? >> yes.
12:31 am
>> the appellant also has a copy. should i give you a minutes to review it? >> why don't you go ahead? >> we have spoken by telephone, by e-mail, and met with the president at least four or five times, and i asked the appellant what it would take to compromise or moved forward. my suggestion is what is the language presented by e-mail. with that memo, i accepted the language. he came back on july 22, and
12:32 am
scott said the agreement is between two parties, so he wrote a different version. i also upset the version. and the appellant disagreed the city should be involved. there is nothing i can do. the third version is for anything that happens, and the government can sue the sponsor. we cannot afford to have an open contract. >> did you ask if he would be willing to pay your attorneys' fees? >> i did not.
12:33 am
i did not think it is fair for him to pay my attorneys' fees, so i do not think it is fair for me to pay his attorneys fees. i have three copies in front of you. the green start is the one i recommend your good estate has the same language as in los -- i recommend. it has the same language as in los angeles. >> we would not accept additional briefing, and now that we have voted to take a look at these, i am going to give us a five minute break, and we are going to read this, so i am going to gavel out. >> we are resuming the october 26 meeting, and we are returning to item no. 5.
12:34 am
how would you like to proceed? >> next, we would hear from him. >> mr. sanchez. likes thanks. -- >> thanks. there are two permits that are at issue. one was issued in may, and the other was issued in june. we issued a suspension letter, and it was brought to our attention they did not receive the review, so we suspended the permits in july of 2010. we spent the following months working to review those permits but also to look good ways to make other modifications to improve the facades and come
12:35 am
into compliance with the permit. they demonstrated an attempt to work once the department -- to work with the department. they filed of permits to deal with the stock issues. we released the suspension on january 10, 2011. there were language issues, so we've issued a revised letter on january 25. we had a hearing several months ago. i must apologize, because i failed to provide that to the board, and i apologize. now i do have a partial printouts. when i region one thing i
12:36 am
apologize is just we of the appellants to submit a list of outstanding issues he had. also, the permit holder worked to come to a resolution. what you see, i acknowledged at a time my authority and putting it into in the star -- in the nsr. it was something we were trying to work with the parties. we had agreement of the language. >> i think you have 30 more
12:37 am
seconds. >> he added an additional processor to run doom -- to undue. it was way beyond the scope, so we pared it down and had a private agreement. but was still not acceptable to the appellant your ego and -- to the appellant. i believe if the permit holders were able to record their private agreement with the recorder's office, that is an appropriate documentation of the agreement they have. >> mr. sanchez.
12:38 am
outside of special agreements applied to certain projects, the ultimate enforcement arm is the planning department. >> the issues would be the appropriate agency and retaining and enforcing that. >> given the code and the changes that applied to the presentation but also given your own internal procedures related suit buildings over a certain region related to buildings of a certain age, scrutiny will -- also given your own internal procedures related to the building, scrutiny will come.
12:39 am
>> how are we to feel assured that would have been given that it did not seem to happen earlier? >> it did happen. at issue are to permit, and we found they did not have a negative impact on the building. the issues are more of the maintenance of the building on related -- non-related to the permits. they have a permit to make some exterior changes, and that is pending review at our apartment, awaiting the resolution of this issue, but they have been working to address outstanding building issues. they have filed permits to address fathat and are working o comply with the permit.
12:40 am
>> setting aside the nsr, why would it not be kept to hpc? >> this is not a landmark building. it is not a historic district. goonot every his story building requires review by the historic preservation commission. goo>> we will move into public comment. can i see a show of hands of how many people are interested in speaking on this item? the first speaker can step forward. whoever would like to speak first. >> i saw three hands.
12:41 am
i see a lot of people. sometimes i make a decision about how much time public speakers can have, and all of a sudden, 25 people stand up, so raise your hands. three minutes. >> i am here to add my voice to my friend and colleague, who has been one of the few residents who has actually defended the character and history and architecture and cultural values of the buildings and the history of chinatown. when he lived on a commercial street, it was the first interesting encounter i had with him, and when he started working on his building in which he lived in as a renter, i was very
12:42 am
inspired by what he was doing. the bigger issue is we are often dependent on public agencies to recognize a building is a historic resources. in many cases, the shortage of staff, the lack of training and perhaps in staff, many in the building department intend to let what normally would have some scrutiny or a professional scrutiny allows projects to go through the should not, and over time, we are led through these drawn-out surveyed said -- drawn out debates, compromises.
12:43 am
many are brought out from what could have been a simple solution in the beginning, when company with proper credentials, attitudes, perspectives, looks at a project and says, this is adversely impacted, but they are very simple solutions. let us solve this now before we grant the permit, rather than years later having to take thousands of dollars and your time and our time to achieve something of should have been done earlier. there seems to be some relatively simple solutions, and that is that this building is a historic resources. these are historic districts.
12:44 am
let's make sure all of them are looked at from this point forward. >> next speaker please. >> good evening, president and commissioners. my name is larry. six years ago, i had no hope for my future. i was just released from my job, and i had no idea how to get a job. one day i was reading a newspaper. then i decided to get some more information from them. that was the best decision i have ever made, and it changed my life. the people were so helpful and
12:45 am
helped me with the city building program. not only that, but they helped to guide me. i graduated and got an apprenticeship from the carpenters union after four years. i now make a living, and i can support me and my family. i have the insurance. all of this could not be possible without the help i received from the cdfc. everyone feels like family, because i know they care about me and my family.
12:46 am
for me to hear they are having some problems with the community center, as a community member, i think it is very important for cdfc to be able to build this. and we should help them. thank you very much for letting me speak. >> thank you. >> next speaker please.
12:47 am
>> i can turn the microphone on. just drag it over. >> good evening, madame president, commissioner.
12:48 am
>> i am sorry, but as a board member of the organization that owns the property, your time to speak was in the three minutes mr. lee had to speak. >> i did not know that. >> that is the board's rules. the rule is the affiliated party has to speak during the time given. >> never mind. >> >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments, commissioners? >> i have a question for mr. waong. you can tell us a little about your organization in one minute.
12:49 am
>> it is an organization to assist new immigrants in chinatown, in job readiness, in employment. we are assisting a lot of new immigrants who have sought on- the-job in english as a second language. every day who have -- who have got jobs as teaching english as a second language. we have an after-school program for the kids, so this program is very strong for the community. i am one of the kids who grew up in chinatown. i see how these new immigrants are trying to earn a living, learn a job to raise their family.
12:50 am
these folks spend morning in the cooking class and work at night, so please consider. thank you very much. >> i will start. i think this issue before us on this specific permanent and the nuances related to this permit is not about who use of the building. it is not about the nonprofits that is going to be housed there. it is about a process in san francisco but has many different approaches. the issue here is the degree to which different segments of our community look at the extent of
12:51 am
preservation within itsel. there are those who feel not an of preservation is occurring -- not enough reservation is caring. i do not want to be like a city where you cannot change of paint cover without a certificate. what is important for this body is to look at both sides. the side of the appellant in terms of his concerns with preservation who needs to however adapt what he is planning in response to some of these citywide issues of preservation, and also of the
12:52 am
various agencies that have jurisdiction, and i think the planning department shares that, however, their approach could be different than certain individuals in the community. we have looked and number of situations here, and there were different permits. it was agreed that one of the permit early on, the way it was done was extremely insensitive, and the fact that it had a very low new ceiling, it would cut across the existing window pattern, and this board rejected this permit. we looked at how certain elements of the dan could be done to minimize this impact on the exterior of the building. i know that in this particular permit, the ceiling height is at 11 feet.
12:53 am
i am assuming based on the drawings that it is above the head height of the windows and therefore has not the same impact as previously. the question comes to mind than of what is occurring with the entry, and we need to look at what is appropriate for the entries because there are other issues in clay, and i said that last time. there are issues of ada accessibility, issues of adapting to the slope of that particular street, and there are issues related to what is constructive role in terms of getting access in. these agreements that have been brought before us attempt to put some sort of framework over the
12:54 am
review in terms of the next 12 years and future modifications of the exterior of this building. it does not, in my opinion, it does not do much. it just codifies a potential direction between the two parties, but it does not really say much. the ultimate enforcement has to be by those who have funded for it, and that is city planning. it is their agency that really needs to enforce this, and i have perhaps a little more confidence in their department and the qualifications of the preservation staff. i have met most of them. there are now degrees in preservation, and it is interesting to the extent that
12:55 am
it has become a major field of study. i am of opinion that should they want to have a private agreement, that is fine, but i am comfortable with the enforcement's in the review provided by the planning department. commissioner peterson: i will go now. commissioner fung articulate the issues and the background well. i have a concern that would shift this to one side. i actually think that could be unconscionable. usually with these clauses, the burden is borne by the losing party, and there is a determination of the prevailing party and so forth. i do think that there is a good point that something should be
12:56 am
in writing so there is something that we can all look back 10 years from now and understand what the agreement was, so i would be inclined -- i was inclined to accept the agreement drafted aboard by zoning with the help of the zoning administrator, but, again, thank you for all of your efforts. your energy toward this is very admiral -- admirable, as are those by the permit holders. vice president garcia: in defense of mr. bley and for those who took the time out to come here this evening, i do not think there is anything he has said that means he is not fully behind the endeavors of this particular organization, and i am sure he wishes them very well.
12:57 am
i understand his frustrations and concerns about enforcement. we, ourselves, on this board sometimes go through a process and thinks the problem is solved, and then for some reason does not get fully enforced. there is no way around that that i can see. i think ultimately, the green star is for go, and i think it is a reasonable document. i agree with the comments of commissioner peterson that we are not about to get involved in awarding legal fees to anyone, and i think that number two on this agreement is probably -- and i do not know that it has that much teeth to it. i do not know if that is proper construction, but at any rate, i think it is worthwhile that we codify that in places. beyond that, i have no comments. president goh: i agree with a
12:58 am
lot of what has been said. i think there are issues with planning and staff training, issues that might result in an efficient scrutiny. for a building like this, it seems to me at least a potential, it is a historic building. even if it is not a designated landmark, but it deserves a higher level of scrutiny, and if it does not rise to a level of being taken to the -- as an aside, maybe it should. and we heard commissioner fung talking about where certificates are needed for even changing paint color. there is one city that needs to be under glass, and it was also voted in a magazine as the
12:59 am
number one destination, that beat out san francisco, so that is my side. i agree with some of what has been said about the shifting of fees. i am not so sure we can do that, but i wonder if the extra notice federer as requested -- that was requested, i think it was 90 days, and then i am wondering about the other fees. when an appeal is taken at least to us, and what do we charge for an appeal? this could be a planning appeal it is several hundred dollars. it is expensive. i do not know if the commissioners would consider some modification to our


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on